Luther, Calvin, and Catholicism

Two items of ecumenical interest:

First, from First Things weblog, Fr. Edward Oakes, S.J.'s Are Protestants Heretics? In it he argues that

When the Western Church fissiparated in the sixteen century, the Reformers took a portion of the essential patrimony of the Church with them, and they thereby left both the Roman Church and themselves the poorer for it.

Second, the schedule for the 2007 Calvin Studies Society Symposium on John Calvin and Roman Catholicism. As an e-mail flyer I received explained:

The theme of "John Calvin and Roman Catholicism" was chosen for several reasons.  First of all, it is an acknowledgement that Calvin did not envision himself as the founder of a new tradition called "Calvinism," but rather as one who sought to restore the Catholic Church to what he called its "purer form" under the apostles and early Church writers.  Calvin thought of himself as belonging to the "orthodox and evangelical" tradition, which associated him not only with Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and Heinrich Bullinger, but also with Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Augustine.  One of the concerns of the colloquium will therefore be to assess the degree to which Calvin might be seen as a Catholic theologian, as surprising as such a claim might appear to be on its face.

Secondly, as a consequence of his desire to restore the Catholic Church of his day, Calvin's engagement with his contemporary Roman Catholics was not tangential to his concerns, but was directly related to the task he was called to carry out.  By placing Calvin and his followers within the context of their wider interactions with Roman Catholics in Geneva and its environs, and in places like Holland, we can get a better idea of what the real issues were that both united and divided them, and will be able to see more clearly how members of the Old Church regarded the work of Calvin and his colleagues.

Thirdly, the theme of the conference highlights the remarkable fact that a good deal of the best scholarship on Calvin has been done by Roman Catholics such as Alexandre Ganoczy, George Tavard, Lucien Richard, Carlos Eire, and Dennis Tamburello.  By holding the conference at Notre Dame, Calvin scholars would not only be acknowledging the major contributions made to their field by their Roman Catholic colleagues, but would also be recognizing the irreducible importance of listening to what our Roman Catholic colleagues see in the thought of Calvin and the movement he so deeply influenced.

Finally, Notre Dame seems to be the ideal place for such a discussion to occur because of its long involvement in and commitment to the ecumenical outreach to other Christian traditions initiated in earnest at Vatican II, which has made Notre Dame such a welcome home for those in Calvin's tradition such as Alvin Plantinga, George Marsden, and Nathan Hatch.  It is our hope that this colloquium could give further impetus to these efforts at ecumenical understanding, which help us to overcome unfortunate stereotypes and to come to a richer understanding of the Christian tradition we all share.

If anyone wants to discuss either item, remember to be kind and that those of other churches are not stupid, venal, or self-indulgent in their ecclesial commitments, even if you think they're wrong. (I'm sure some people in every church are, and they may be especially drawn to interchurch polemics, but we should assume the best of our brethren.)

Comments

[Little Gidding]

No offense, but it seems to me that, if Calvin is "a Catholic theologian," then so are Valentinus and Marcion.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>No offense, but it seems to me that, if Calvin is "a Catholic theologian," then so are Valentinus and Marcion.<<<

They were, just not particularly successful ones.

[Wolf N. Paul]

Be sure to read Fr. Oakes' follow-up article as well where he, in response to a reader's challenge, relativizes the statement quoted here: it's not as if the Reformers, when they departed, actually took part of the deposit of faith with them so it was no longer present in the Catholic Church.

[Brian John Schuettler]

Br sure to follow Father Oakes three part debate with Catholic theologian Alyssa Pitstick concerning von Balthasar's teaching on Christ's Descent Into Hell after His Resurrection...at First Things.

[James A. Altena]

"No offense, but it seems to me that, if Calvin is 'a Catholic theologian,' then so are Valentinus and Marcion."

Actually, Dr. Oakes' follow-up deals extensively with discussing *why* Calvin is not in the same class as Valentinus and Marcion (even if he also is not a "Catholic theologian" in the sense of Aquinas). I think the intent is to be generous in the use of "catholic" (perhaps overly so) to indicate those primary points essential to salvation where Calvin was in accord with the church catholic (the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.), as opposed to secondary points non-essential to salvation wherein (in the view of Rome) he erred (e.g. the nature of the sacraments).

This also gets back to the distinction I made in am MC blog some months ago between "false" and "defective" churches. An example of the former would be the Mormons, JWs, or Swedenborgians; the latter (from e.g. an RC perspective) are Nicene-Creed affirming Protestant churches.

Per the second essay, I suggest that the two terms Dr. Oakes is looking for are "intuition" (instead of "feeling") and "theological error" (as distinct from "heresy").

[Little Gidding]

Yes, I have read the whole exchange, and I believe that Pitstick has far the better case. On the basic issue of distinguishing Marcion from Calvin, I would say that it appears to me that Oakes' argument would make a difference without a distinction.

After the last Episcopal General Convention, which was pointedly unable and unwilling to affirm the Trinity and the Nicene Creed, would TEC fall into the class of "false" or "defective" churches?

[Stuart Koehl]

I found myself in serious disagreement with Stephen Barr's definition of heresy, not the least because it is not consistent with the pronouncements and behavior of the Catholic Church. Now, although this article deals mainly with the issue of whether Protestants are heretics, the principles and definitions involved apply equally to the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Barr defined heresy as follows:

>>>“Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.”

The Catholic Church says that all things (though not only those things) taught by Ecumenical Councils as revealed truths under pain of anathema are to be believed “by divine and Catholic faith.” There are propositions on justification and other matters that were taught by the Council of Trent under pain of anathema. So, if a baptized person were obstinately to deny one of those propositions, the term heresy, as used technically by the Catholic Church, would apply to him.<<<

Now, the problem with this is the excessive, indeed sloppy application of the terms "dogma" and "anathema" by the Latin Church in the second millennium. Considering the Roman Church and the Catholic Church to be co-terminous during much of that period, it had no qualms about defining the practices and doctrines of the Latin Church as normative for all Christians. Thus, there are many matters which have be declared "de fide" "under pain of anathema", which are in fact peculiar only to the Latin Tradition, were never part of any other Tradition, and which as a matter of fact, the Latin Church always allowed even within the ranks of those Eastern Christians in communion with Rome. If these are "dogmas", they're pretty leaky ones.

Moreover, the situation muddles even more when we look at the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches since Vatican II.

If Barr is correct, then the Orthodox can only be described as "heretics", since they do not accept a range of so-called "de fide" pronouncements, notably Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, and the ex Cathedra definition of the immaculate conception.

Yet for all that, Vatican II and subsequent magisterial documents of the Catholic Church refer to the Orthodox as "Sister Churches", consider their orders and sacraments to be valid, and allow Catholics to receive the Eucharist and other sacraments from Orthodox priests, and allow the Orthodox to receive the sacraments in Catholic churches without the necessity of conversion.

If Barr is right, and the Orthodox by persistently denying "de fide" pronouncements of the Catholic Church are by definition heretics, then the Catholic heirarchy is perpetrating a massive fraud, indeed, is committing blasphemy by entrusting the souls of its faithful to heretics and by admitting unrepentent heretics to communion (which is the position taken by some Catholic traditionalist groups that reject Vatican II).

Alternatively, Barr is wrong, and the definition of heresy is something other than that which is contained in the 1983 Codex Canonorum. Which would bring around to Oakes' perspective.

Or, to present a third option, the CC and Barr are correct, but that the corpus of second millennium conciliar and pontifical decrees requires reexamination and a "relativization" of those which are truly universal in their impact and application; and those which are merely particular to the Latin Church.

I much prefer the third option because it narrows down the scope of heresy and would exclude differences in modes of doctrinal expression when the essential content of doctrine is consistent with the Great Tradition (or what Latins call the Depositum Fidei). It would then provide a basis for recapturing the patristic consensus that held the Church together for 1000 years. On the other hand, it would also provide a solid basis for identifying areas where certain groups have indeed departed from that Great Tradition, and therefore truly are heretical. Once we have a definition of the Tradition, and thereby a means of bounding heresy, we finally have a way of honestly and openly addressing our differences.

As for Pilstick, I was uterly unimpressed by her attack on Balthasar. She strikes me as precisely the kind of integrist who does not understand the concept of "diversity in unity" or its necessity to the catholicity of the Church. A Latin triumphalist pure and simple, she doesn't bring anything useful to the table. it would be interesting to hear her condemn Gregory of Nyssa for his "universalism", and wonder how many other saints would fail to meet her criteria for being truly "Catholic".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Yes, I have read the whole exchange, and I believe that Pitstick has far the better case.<<<

So, pace Barr and Pilstick, are the Orthodox also heretics? If not, why not?

[Little Gidding]

I didn't bring up Barr, who makes his own case. Stuart, I too would prefer your third option. May it happen! However, I have to ask, is Orthodoxy "inclusive" of universalism? Why would there be a Hell if it's empty?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Why would there be a Hell if it's empty?

So the church can get a good thigh work-out, and break in her new boots?

[Bill Scott]

Re. "... von Balthasar's teaching on Christ's Descent Into Hell after His Resurrection...at First Things."

Did von Balthasar really teach that Christ descended into Hell after His Resurrection? Or was it after His death, while His body was in the tomb?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>However, I have to ask, is Orthodoxy "inclusive" of universalism? <<<

To quote Maximos the Confessor on Gregory of Nyssa: "One should pray constantly for Apocatastasis, but it would be folly to teach it as doctrine". Meaning, within the limits of Gregory's position, one may hope that God who desires all men to be saved will manage to pull it off, but it would be presumptuous to say that He must pull it off.

>>>Why would there be a Hell if it's empty?<<<

Hell is a necessary concomitant of free will. That said, we don't know that ANYBODY is in it right now, nor can we say for sure how many residents it will have after the Parousia.

[Little Gidding]

one may hope that God who desires all men to be saved will manage to pull it off, but it would be presumptuous to say that He must pull it off

Yet, as you say, we have free will and therefore have the freedom to reject Him, despite what He has done for us. This makes me somewhat uneasy with phrases like, "God ... will manage to pull it off" or that "He must pull it off." Doesn't that suggest that it is God that "puts" me in Hell, rather than me who puts me there? And again, we don't know that any (particular) body is in Hell, but is that the same as not knowing that *anybody* is in it? Does it seem likely that no one has finally rejected Him? And then, after the Parousia--no we can't say for sure how many residents Hell will have, but "He will come in glory to judge the living and the dead." Wouldn't that judgement include the determination of whether we had accepted or rejected Him? And if so, wouldn't our free will still be a part of us? No, I couldn't say how many sheep and how many goats there will be, but does the Parousia mean that God will force the goats to be sheep?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Yet, as you say, we have free will and therefore have the freedom to reject Him, despite what He has done for us. This makes me somewhat uneasy with phrases like, "God ... will manage to pull it off" or that "He must pull it off." <<<

Here we have an example of an apparent contradiction: On the one hand, God is omnipotent; He can do what He wills. He can fulfill all his desires. He desires all men to be saved.

On the other hand, God created man in his own image, endowed with free will. He desires loving children, not obedient slaves. Thus we do have the ability to reject the gift of divine grace which rains down upon us from heaven.

How does God reconcile his two contradictory desires? The answer is, "We don't know". We must have faith in Him and trust in Him, that as Lover of Mankind, his mercy endureth forever and knows no limits. It is, in short, a great mystery. One might express one's confidence that God can do this. One cannot say that God will do this. On the other hand, one cannot say that God CANNOT do this.

>>."He will come in glory to judge the living and the dead." Wouldn't that judgement include the determination of whether we had accepted or rejected Him?<<<

Another great mystery. Confronted with His benevolent and all-powerful light, who COULD reject Him? We don't know. As Chrysostom says, He accepts those who labor from the eleventh hour as well as those who labor from the first. In any case, how does God act as judge? Does HE pass judgment on US, or rather, do we judge ourselves? Before his awesome judgment throne, are we not forced to confront ourselves without illusion, to see ourselves as we really are? And having done so, do we not condemn ourselves, if condemned we must be? But even then, is God not free to forgive us, if we will only accept his pardon?

Which brings me to another of my own personal theologumena: Heaven and hell are the same place, the same thing. Heaven is standing in God's divine light, a benevolent and loving glow, for God is Love. Hell, on the other hand, is that same light as seen by those who reject God, in the same way that the warm glow of the sun is welcomed by those who live in the light, but is perceived as blinding heat and pain by those who have dwelt too long in darkness (Gollum, anyone?). So, at the end, we all come into God's presence, and those who love Him and accept his grace will welcome his light, while those who reject Him and hate his light will flee from it, and try to hide themselves in darkness, but God's light illuminates all things, and they cannot flee, and thus they live out eternity in torment.

[Little Gidding]

Yes, I'm with you on all this. What I'm worried about is what you've already pointed out, regarding the mystery of salvation and how it applies to the destiny of souls. As you quote Maximos regarding the universal workings of God's redemptive act and the hope that all souls will be saved ... "to preach it as doctrine would be folly." I think this is actually what the argument between Oakes and Pitstick is about. I see Catholic doctrine as intensely concerned with preserving doctrinal language that captures mystery in the sense that it does not isolate one aspect of the truth or, to put it another way, it adopts language that may even be paradoxical but that strives to express the full truth as understood by the Apostles and which also strives to prevent one who hears the doctrine from falling off the cliffs that loom down on either side of the narrow path.

Preaching universalism "as doctrine" has become the folly of our age. And it has entered the preaching within the Catholic Church by way of Balthasar's speculations on this. Is he "to blame" for this? I doubt it. But it is in the face of this widespread folly that Pitstick raises the flag of heresy. The determination of heresy, in this way, is not some exercise in abstract thought, but a reaction designed to meet a specific historical challenge in which misconstrued doctrine is being widely broadcast and is offering itself in opposition to the fullness of orthodoxy.

I well remember a class of potential "reverts" to Catholicism some years ago (of whom I was one member). The catechist who ran the class invited the members of the class to raise as issues the obstacles to Faith that they had. One might have had an objection to the fact that the Church didn't ordain women. And so on. At one of the meetings, several members of the class raised the issue of "this whole Hell thing ... I don't know if I can really accept that ..." etc. So, immediately the leader whipped out photocopies of a summary article of Balthasar's universalism--"Well, we have to believe there's a Hell, but we don't have to believe there's anyone actually in it." So, okay, my fellow class members' uneasiness with the idea of Hell was assuaged. They breathed a sigh of relief and moved on to their next objection to the Church.

To me, that was a case of the leader's preaching folly. It pandered to them and left them asleep to their own sin. That was not a kindness.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Little Gidding,

We disagree, and Dr. Oakes is making an important distinction. The difference between Calvin and Trent is essentially (though not in details) the difference between the RC and Reformed Protestant today. Both affirm all the contents of the Nicene Creed; Rome recognizes the Reformed to be "separated brethren" who hold to the essentials of the faith as stated in the Creed, albeit with a defective understanding and form of the ramifications of the same. Issues such as sacraments and ordained ministry, while important, are simply not on the same level as those of the Trinity and Incarnation. All this is fundamentally different than the contrast between the RC and Reformed on the one hand, say, Elizabeth Clare Prophet or Sun Myung Moon on the other, to whom no such recognition can be extended.

As a former Episcopalian and long-time member of the traditional Anglican "Continuum", I have no trouble with saying that TEC is a false church rather than a defective one, both formally and materially apostate (becoming officially so by the 2003 General Convention at the latest date) and (barring an extraordinary kind of divine intervention that would be presumptuous to assume) beyond reclamation. I believe that every orthodox Christian body should cease all contacts with it, and (along with such a redoubtable man as Fr. Samuel Edwards) that all who profess the orthodox Christian faith have a moral and spiritual obligatiton to leave it forthwith. That is in contrast to, e.g. the (Reformed and conservative) Presbyterian Church in America, which (from Rome's standpoint at least) would be a defective but not false church.

As for the catechist you cite -- we agree what he did is awful, but it should also be pointed out that he fundamentally misrepresented von Balthasar's position as well. Balthasar never said that we can simply choose to believe that no-one is in Hell. He said that we might "dare hope that all men will be saved." To be allowed to dare to hope something is not the same thing as to assert it to be a positive fact. In saying this, Balthasar is addressing the issues of God's love expressed in his omnipotence, and the shaping of our own souls in charity towards others, rather than asserting an actual state of affairs. The same dynamic is present in C. S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce." If there are souls in Hell, it is ultimately because of their ongoing choice, with their free wills respected by God. (And, by the way, despite that hope, I happen to believe for the same reason as in Lewis' book that, alas, Hell is well populated with unrepentant souls.)

Dear Stuart,

Re: Stephen Barr's definition of heresy: I think the problem hinges on how broad a net Barr means to cast in speaking of "some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith." Only he can answer that, but perhaps he has a far more circumscribed understanding of what that encompasses than you suppose. If not, then I agree with you.

[Brian John Schuettler]

Re. "... von Balthasar's teaching on Christ's Descent Into Hell after His Resurrection...at First Things."

Did von Balthasar really teach that Christ descended into Hell after His Resurrection? Or was it after His death, while His body was in the tomb?

Please forgive me, Bill! I obviously meant BEFORE His Resurrection, Holy Saturday...I would be entering hersey myself if I start contradicting the Creed. :)

[Stuart Koehl]

When in doubt, look to your liturgies. Or your icons, if you have them. From the perspective of the Byzantine Paschal liturgies, the decent into Hades (NOT Hell, according to the Fathers) is an essential element of the divine economy of salvation. "Christ is risen from the dead/Trampling down death by death/And to those in the tomb, bestowing life". Or, as St. John Chrysostom put it in his famous Paschal Homily,

Let no one be afraid of death, for the Lord's death has delivered us:
He has destroyed it by enduring it;
He went down into the Abyss and stripped the Abyss;
He made it bitter for having tasted his flesh.
That is what Isaiah foretold:
The Abyss, he said, was made bitter when it met You beneath the ground;
It was made bitter because it was reduced to naught;
It was made bitter because it was fooled;
It was made bitter because it was put to death;
It was made bitter because it was annihilated.
It seized a corpse, and lo! discovered God;
It took hold of earth, and behold! encounered heaven!
It captured the seen, and fell before the unseen.

The Liturgy of St. Basil the Great give a more concise and systematic explanation:

Having cleansed us with water and having sancified us with the Holy Spirit,
He surrendered himself as a ransom to death by which we were held captive,
Having been sold into bondage under sin.
Descending by the cross into the realm of death
That He might fulfill all things in himself,
He loosed the bonds of death.
Because it was impossible that the Author of Life
Should be the victim of corruption,
He arose on the third day,
Preparing the way for the resurrection of all flesh from the dead.

He thus became the first-fruits of the harvest of the departed,
The first-born of the dead,
That in all things He mght have preeminence over all.

[Little Gidding]

Mr. Altena,

I don't sense that we're very far apart on this, but I do think it's useful to consider the Nicene Creed, since you have mentioned that as in the category of fundamentals, and something that, if one were to renounce, then one would be an apostate, rather than separated, from the Church.

Practically speaking, it would be difficult, I think, to find someone in TEC who would actually renounce or deny the Creed. I do believe that even in revisionist churches, everyone still stands and recites the Nicene Creed. But what has occurred is not a disagreement about this or that in the Creed, but rather about the whole "Creed thing," if you will allow me to link it to my previous note about my fellow catechumens' questioning of the "whole Hell thing." Which is to say, that one senses in the deliberations of the last General Convention that TECers might recite the Creed, but only as if it were an extended trope. They would admit that it had no more or less truth, ultimately, than a paean to Astarte. At this point, I'd conclude that something quite fundamental has changed. Indeed, for them, I sense, sin would consist of taking the Creed too seriously. Virtue and enlightenment would consist of taking it lightly.

In any event, isn't this is heresy generally happens? Someone becomes quite profoundly impressed with one part of the truth and it comes to overshadow the rest of it. He or she drags it out from stage left or right onto center stage. Emblazons it on their standard. And so diminishes the rest of the truth. Calvin, I take it, was profoundly impressed by the depths of human depravity and by how very very small we are under the mantle of God's omnipotence. Is that wrong? No. But the next thing you know, the Puritans are smashing church windows and outlawing the sacraments, and iconoclasts are burning statues.

Again, by accepting the Creed as a mere trope, one is waving on one's banner the truth that words cannot frame the Infinite. However, now that we've done that and softened up the ground underneath the language of the Creed, we can play games like referring to "Jesus our Mother," dragging something that had its truth framed in a far different context, into "mainstream orthodoxy," as Schori put it. Mother, father, Yahweh, Astarte, Buddha--they're all tropes and are unlikely to survive the Parousia. So, in that light, we have no reason not to spread words around as we wish.

So it's not just agreement about points in the Creed, but about the fullness of the Faith, with all its parts in just proportion so that the Faithful will not be led astray.

[Little Gidding]

And Stuart,

I ask you, does this mean that there's no Hell left for us to go to? And did Jesus break Satan out of prison as well?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I ask you, does this mean that there's no Hell left for us to go to? And did Jesus break Satan out of prison as well?<<<

Hades is not hell. Hades, the Abyss, Sheol--this is the place where the dead resided before the Resurrection. Held ransom to death through sin, when man died his soul was alienated from his body, and from God. He lived a shadow existence, only partially complete, because man is a psycho-somatic entity, a body AND a soul, and neither complete without the other. Christ descended into the Abyss, destroyed the bonds of death over mankind by himself embracing it voluntarily. As Basil writes, "Because it was impossible for the Author of Life to be subject to corruption, He arose on the third day". By his death, Christ conquered death, released us from it. However, because the Kingdom is not here in its fullness, man is still subject to the death of the body, but falls asleep in the confidence that at the end of days bodies and souls shall be united in the resurrection of all flesh.

At that point, there shall be a judgment, the sorting of the sheep and the goats. At that point, hell becomes significant. But, I believe, hell is simply the Kingdom of God as perceived by those who hate God; its very existence is a torment to them, even as it is a bliss to those who love God. Who will be consigned there, how they are consigned there, is a mystery not revealed. Nor is the fate of Satan and his fallen angels.

Gregory of Nyssa believed in the Apokatastasis of Creation, a renewal, a setting to right in which all things will be as they should have been but for the Fall. He believed it was within God's power even to save Satan, but Gregory did not insist that God must do so.

And no, Jesus did not break Satan out of prison as well. Satan, being an angelic spirit, is not subject to death, and therefore was never in Hades.

[GL]

But, I believe, hell is simply the Kingdom of God as perceived by those who hate God; its very existence is a torment to them, even as it is a bliss to those who love God.

Stuart,

Do you have any sources, Scriptural or early Church fathers, which provide support for this understanding? I had understood hell to be, among other things, eternal separation from God. Your view appears to be that the blessed and the damn are both eternally in His presence, with the latter suffering torment because of it. That is an understanding with which I am unfamiliar. I would like to read more about this view in greater detail.

Thanks in advance.

[Stuart Koehl]

It is, as I said, my theologumenon. But consider: even in my conception of it, hell IS eternal separation from God. They are alienated from Him because they cannot abide his presence. They stand before Him and cannot look upon Him, and they are in anguish.

This addresses the Greek understanding of teleology--that every being has a purpose, and is truly happy only when fulfilling that purpose. Man was made to worship God, and those who are eternally incapable of doing so will be eternally unhappy.

Moreover, I find the notion of a "place" where God is not contrary to the very concept of God "who is everywhere present and fills all things". If hell is a "place" where the damned are eternally separated from God, then God is NOT everywhere, does not fill all things.

Finally, a God who is love in its purest manifestation could not condemn one of his creatures to eternal torment. That the torment is eternal means that there is no redemption from it (unlike Hades), and that is not compatible with any definition of love. On the other hand, God loves us so much that He gave us the unconstrained freedom that He himself enjoys, and his love is so great that He does not infringe upon it, even when we abuse it. God therefore leaves it to us to determine our fate. If we are saved, we are saved through his love and divine grace. But if we are damned, we do it to ourselves. Our pride, like that of Satan, would be what keeps us from being able to look upon the divine presence. Our pride is what would torment us. God does not do this to us, we do it to ourselves. It is not God's fault that He is God. He wants us to be his loving children--but he isn't going to force us to be good, nor does he give us a cosmic time out when we are bad. He simply allows us to make our own bed and lie in it.

Unless, of course, Gregory of Nyssa was right, and God does have a plan that preseves both the integrity of human freedom and saves us all. But that's way above my pay grade.

[Rob Grano]

'Your view appears to be that the blessed and the damned are both eternally in His presence, with the latter suffering torment because of it. That is an understanding with which I am unfamiliar. I would like to read more about this view in greater detail.'

GL -- if memory serves, there is a discussion of this idea in Dorothy Sayers's introduction to her translation of the Divine Comedy. It is a rather common understanding of Hell among the Eastern Orthodox. The light of God that is his love illumines his saints because they receive it; it likewise burns the damned because they reject it. But this doesn't necessarily include the notion that the saved and the damned are in the same 'place.'

[GL]

Stuart and Rob,

Thanks for the replies.

I guess there is some connection between this idea and C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce, in which the damned have the opportunity after death to be in God's presence, but reject it -- flee from it. But in the end, I believe (it has been awhile since I read it), they choose *not to be in His presence*. In that novel, if memory serves me, the damned are in the end not in the same place as the blessed. Stuart's argument has some logic to it, I am just unfamiliar with it. I really would like to read more about this view if anyone is aware of any sources. I will look at Dorothy Sayer's introduction.

[Little Gidding]

Hello again Stuart,

Yes, Hell and sheol are not the same. But, as I recall, this was Pitstick's point. She made it because the Descensus, as described by Balthazar and his amanuensis Speyr, required Jesus to descend not just into sheol, but into Hell itself, where he would place himself into the circumstance of Satan--completely and utterly abandoned of God. They seem to have required this in order to make salvation completely effective. Otherwise it seemed to them that the redemptive act would lack power and that would be a limitation on the Divine, as if Jesus couldn't go to Hell if he chose to. By this, they were led to describe Jesus as not only the Savior, but also, because he was abandoned in the lowest Hell, as one who needed to be saved. This, as I understand it, is the consequence of taking "seriously" St. Paul's description of Jesus' having "become" sin. Or at least, as I understand Fr. Oakes' comment, this allows us, as Catholics, to consider anew the gravity of this statement, which the traditional understanding of the Descensus has distracted us from. Perhaps so, but it also would seem to allow us to discount the notion that Jesus was like us in every way except sin. It takes hold of one truth and brings it to front, overshadowing the full truth. This is the nature of heresy.

And, I think, "heresy" fits here because this doctrine of the Descensus is not an unimportant one. On first glance, I think it might seem to matter very little whether Jesus descended into the "first hell" or the lowest hell, but when you press on it, it opens up something very profound about how salvation occurs and about the nature of Christ. It's really fundamental, not secondary. The entire superstructure, both visible and ordinarily invisible, of salvation pivots on this point. And I don't think the difficulty goes away by considering that Heaven and Hell are not different "places," but rather the same place, experienced differently by the sinner and the saint. This preserves the omnipresence of God, discribing Him as truly present everywhere, but just shifts the difficulty to explaining His omnipotence, i.e., how could there be anyone "standing" in the full light of God's glory who could not be saved? How could they hold anything back? After all, there's no place left to hide. Nevertheless, God allows that "space" (however non-physically that word might be understood), and makes it possible for one to be "in" Hell just as truly as one could be "in" Heaven.

[James A. Altena]

Dear GL,

I think the problem here is how one conceives of "place" and "not to be in His presence." God being omnipresent, all are in some sense in His presence. What "place", "presence", "separation", etc., must necessarily refer to, then, are states of relation to God. Thus, to take Stuart's theologeumenon (which, as he admits, is possible but not certain) the damned are separated from God in the sense that they cannot "behold Him face to face" and "see Him as He is", as do the redeemed, according to His essential being. However, they necessarily experience and suffer the effects of being inescapably in His presence, according to His activities (energies), which for them is intolerable misery because they love sin and hate goodness. Thus for both the saved and the damend, God is a consuming fire. For the former, it continually refines them, according to their love of and for Him. For the latter, it constantly immolates them as dross, according to their hatred of Him.

One might also think of the conclusion of C. S. Lewis' "The Last Battle," where the evil dwarves can only perceive delicacies as rotten dregs, etc.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Little Gidding,

Thank you for your comments.

First, anyone who e.g. takes the Creed "only as if it were an extended trope . . . [that] had no more or less truth, ultimately, than a paean to Astarte." is denying the Creed. Denial does not have to consist of a formally signed declaration; otherwise, we'd have to concede the point to anti-RC fundamentalists whose tracts say on exactly the same grounds that Adolf Hitler was an RC. (And, yes, I've actually seen such tracts. Ever hear of Tony Alamo?)

But this still is simply not the same thing as the case with Calvin, Luther, etc. There are degrees of error and heresy, and not all slippery slopes are inevitable or total. Some errors are limited in range, scope, or effect. E.g. a math student may systematically make a particular error in working a differential equation in calculus, but that does not necessarily entail him not being able to add, subtract, multiply or divide correctly. Thus someone such as Calvin is (from the standpoint of Rome) in grievous error regarding e.g. the nature of the Eucharist, but that does not entail a denial or perversion of the Trinity or Incarnation such as are held by Mormons or JWs. No one can fairly say that Calvin, Luther, et al. regarded the Creed as a mere trope.

The problem, as I suggested earlier, is also one of the distinction between heresy and theological error. Somewhat akin (though not identical to) Stephen Barr's statement, the difference is that heresy is contumacious -- it is knowing and willful denial of orthodoxy.

The catch here is what is meant by "knowing" and "willful". Consider the difference between John Shelby Spong and John Calvin.

Spong knows perfectly well that the apostles, and all orthodox Christians since them, believe that Jesus truly and literally rose from the dead, and that the Church has always taught this. He willfully dismisses it as a superstitious delusion and rejects it in toto. Ditto for the Trinity and Incarnation. He is, indubitably, a heretic.

John Calvin, by contrast, accepts the Creed in toto in its literal sense. (If you want to quibble about the meaning of "one" regarding the Church here, please see my comments under the "Multisite Church" thread.) Calvin did deny the doctrine of the Eucharist taught by the See of Rome, and indeed the nature of that See as it represented itself. But, notably, unlike Spong he did not do so knowing that that the Church from the apostles onward had taught the doctrines he denied. On the contrary, unlike Spong he believed that he was being faithful to what the apostles and fathers had taught before true teaching had become gradually corrupted at a later stage.

Argue if you like that Calvin was utterly wrong in his conviction here; but it is not contumacious either in kind or degree the way that Spong is. It is not knowing or willful in either the same kind or degree. Calvin is guilty of grave theological error; but arguably not of heresy, or at least not in the same way and to the same degree that Spong is guilty.

Also, Calvin's error concerns the nature of the Church, not the nature of God; the former is creaturely, and not an object of worship, the latter is eternal and the sole true object of worship. Also, contrary to your metaphor, Calvin did not have his error displace the central Christian truths of the Creed from center stage; and even if they are emblazoned on his stadard, they are there as filigree work, not the central symbols, which remain the same as before -- the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.

Alternatively, one could perhaps argue that Calvin was materially but not formally guilty of heresy. I happen to think that is not the proper classification.

But this is the point at which Dr. Oakes is driving. However we define and speak of heresy and error, both truth and charity require of us that we speak of someone such as Calvin in a completely different way than we speak of someone such as Spong, just as Rome speaks of Nicene-Creed adhering Protestant bodies in a completely different way than it speaks of New Age cults. The former are Christians, the latter are not.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Little Gidding,

Thank you for your comments.

First, anyone who e.g. takes the Creed "only as if it were an extended trope . . . [that] had no more or less truth, ultimately, than a paean to Astarte." is denying the Creed. Denial does not have to consist of a formally signed declaration; otherwise, we'd have to concede the point to anti-RC fundamentalists whose tracts say on exactly the same grounds that Adolf Hitler was an RC. (And, yes, I've actually seen such tracts. Ever hear of Tony Alamo?)

But this still is simply not the same thing as the case with Calvin, Luther, etc. There are degrees of error and heresy, and not all slippery slopes are inevitable or total. Some errors are limited in range, scope, or effect. E.g. a math student may systematically make a particular error in working a differential equation in calculus, but that does not necessarily entail him not being able to add, subtract, multiply or divide correctly. Thus someone such as Calvin is (from the standpoint of Rome) in grievous error regarding e.g. the nature of the Eucharist, but that does not entail a denial or perversion of the Trinity or Incarnation such as are held by Mormons or JWs. No one can fairly say that Calvin, Luther, et al. regarded the Creed as a mere trope.

The problem, as I suggested earlier, is also one of the distinction between heresy and theological error. Somewhat akin (though not identical to) Stephen Barr's statement, the difference is that heresy is contumacious -- it is knowing and willful denial of orthodoxy.

The catch here is what is meant by "knowing" and "willful". Consider the difference between John Shelby Spong and John Calvin.

Spong knows perfectly well that the apostles, and all orthodox Christians since them, believe that Jesus truly and literally rose from the dead, and that the Church has always taught this. He willfully dismisses it as a superstitious delusion and rejects it in toto. Ditto for the Trinity and Incarnation. He is, indubitably, a heretic.

John Calvin, by contrast, accepts the Creed in toto in its literal sense. (If you want to quibble about the meaning of "one" regarding the Church here, please see my comments under the "Multisite Church" thread.) Calvin did deny the doctrine of the Eucharist taught by the See of Rome, and indeed the nature of that See as it represented itself. But, notably, unlike Spong he did not do so knowing that that the Church from the apostles onward had taught the doctrines he denied. On the contrary, unlike Spong he believed that he was being faithful to what the apostles and fathers had taught before true teaching had become gradually corrupted at a later stage.

Argue if you like that Calvin was utterly wrong in his conviction here; but it is not contumacious either in kind or degree the way that Spong is. It is not knowing or willful in either the same kind or degree. Calvin is guilty of grave theological error; but arguably not of heresy, or at least not in the same way and to the same degree that Spong is guilty.

Also, Calvin's error concerns the nature of the Church, not the nature of God; the former is creaturely, and not an object of worship, the latter is eternal and the sole true object of worship. Also, contrary to your metaphor, Calvin did not have his error displace the central Christian truths of the Creed from center stage; and even if they are emblazoned on his stadard, they are there as filigree work, not the central symbols, which remain the same as before -- the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.

Alternatively, one could perhaps argue that Calvin was materially but not formally guilty of heresy. I happen to think that is not the proper classification.

But this is the point at which Dr. Oakes is driving. However we define and speak of heresy and error, both truth and charity require of us that we speak of someone such as Calvin in a completely different way than we speak of someone such as Spong, just as Rome speaks of Nicene-Creed adhering Protestant bodies in a completely different way than it speaks of New Age cults. The former are Christians, the latter are not.

[James A. Altena]

Apologies for the duplicate posting. My computer came up with an error message that indicated the first comment did not transmit.

[Bill R]

What makes MC such a great place are posts such as James's, above, in defense (more or less) of Calvin, since James greatly disapproves of Calvin, but is still unwilling to see that he is slandered or misrepresented. It's too easy to criticize Christian traditions with which we disagree; the real act of charity is to defend those with whom we may disagree when the latter are unfairly attacked.

[David Gray]

James,

Excellent post.

[Little Gidding]

Dear Mr. Altena,

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I didn't mean to imply that "Luther, Calvin et al" denied the Creed. I was referring to TEC, insofar as the last General Convention is a fair representative of TEC. I brought TEC up because here we have a case in which the Creed remains, as does much else of the Christian tradition, but which, nevertheless, appears to many (and to me, but that's neither here nor there) to have become a non-Christian organization, despite its continued inclusion of the Creed--which certainly does contain the fundaments of the Faith--in its practice. Its an interesting case, I think. I have heard more than one revisionist clergyman explain that the authentic Episcopalian genius or chrism is that it bases itself, not on the content of Faith in which Episcopalians believe, but merely in the fact that Episcopalians are people who gather together and recite the Book of Common Prayer--something that, of course, calls for the recitation of the Nicene Creed. But then there's "that whole Creed thing" that seemed so "hateful" and exclusivist to the General Convention.

I do indeed agree that there are degrees of error, some minor, some major. But I happen to think that the doctrine explaining the Descensus is fundamental, and, as I look at the footnotes in my Catechism, I see that several Councils and Church Fathers have thought it important enough also to trouble themselves with. As for my imputing a "slippery slope"--whether Calvin's theology inevitably led to the Puritans' smashing the churches, I make no claim to know. But it did in fact happen that way historically. And the iconoclasts certainly believed that they were simply working out the imperatives of their theology.

[Ethan Cordray]

Quite well said, James.

>>just as Rome speaks of Nicene-Creed adhering Protestant bodies in a completely different way than it speaks of New Age cults. The former are Christians, the latter are not.<<

Maybe this would have been a better thread to post my little story to. Anyone who'd like to read may find it on the "Multi-site Church" thread. The converging subjects of the two threads tempts me to double post, but for now I'll refrain.

For anyone who has read it, what's the call? "UFO's and the Bible": heresy, or just theological error fortissimo?

[Bill R]

"For anyone who has read it, what's the call? "UFO's and the Bible": heresy, or just theological error fortissimo?"

I vote for a great TV series!

[Bill R]

"As for my imputing a "slippery slope"--whether Calvin's theology inevitably led to the Puritans' smashing the churches, I make no claim to know."

That's a little like saying that Roman Catholic theology leads to priestly buggery. But I make no claim to know...

[James A. Altena]

Thanks to David, Bill, and Ethan for their support.

I think I've said my piece. Not being an RC, an appeal to the Descensus is not at all persuasive to me. I think I've already made it clear that anyone who tries to explain away the literal meaning of the Creed is ipso facto denying it, and that I am not willing to put any person or church body that *truly* affirms the Creed instead of resorting to such tactics in the class of heretics, or at least in such a class that would put them together with Gnostics, etc., such as Little Gidding originally did. That is simply wrong, period.

Off to vestry meeting!

[peterspence]

Stuart said:

"But, I believe, hell is simply the Kingdom of God as perceived by those who hate God; its very existence is a torment to them, even as it is a bliss to those who love God."

This reminds me of something I read long ago in which the author (Eckhart? Boehme?) maintains that God is never changing in His love for us. For those in the depths of sin, however, God's love feels like a punishing fire; for those in grace, it is warmth.

[Gene Godbold]

I've read that God's love and wrath are the same. But because we're finite and temporal, we can only experience/understand one thing at a time.

I imagine that to experience God in a somewhat less mediated manner would prove quite overpowering in our present condition. (Do you suppose that this was one of the things God was trying to impart to Moses before He showed him His backparts?)

[Gene Godbold]

GL,
In *The Great Divorce* (which I haven't read in a decade), isn't it finally revealed that Hell is something rather less substantial than a single atom in Heaven? But the location of the atom is still "in" Heaven.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> I imagine that to experience God in a somewhat less mediated manner would prove quite overpowering in our present condition. (Do you suppose that this was one of the things God was trying to impart to Moses before He showed him His backparts?)<<<

Indeed. But it also explains the universal belief on the part of the early Church that the soul would need some sort of purification before it entered into God's presence.

[GL]

Gene,

You are correct that hell is depicted in The Great Divorce as smaller than an atom, but I do not recall it having a location specified, whether as located in heaven or as separated from it.

I am not disputing Stuart's understanding, I had just never heard that description before. All I insist upon about hell is that it is real, it is physical (i.e., it is a place as the damned, just like the blessed, will have bodies and bodies must, therefore, occupy space), that there will in fact be some people who will spend eternity there, that those there will experience eternal torment, and that there is a great gulf between the blessed and the damned which cannot be crossed. As I consider Stuart's speculations, I can see nothing about them which is inconsistent with those characteristics.

[Brian Kelly]

Stuart,

Have you read the original Augsburg Confession of Luther in the German?

He ends it (with Melancthon's input): "[There} is no salvation outide the Roman Catholic Church." Melancthon told his mother on her deathbed when she asked him which religion she should die in: "It is easier to live in the new, but it is safer to die in the old."

I know that you are not Lutheran Catholic, but what is the problem with the Orthodox just being obedient and accepting all the doctrinal (not disciplinary, obviously) pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church? What is the obstacle? The filioque? The Immaculate Conception? No, it is the Supremacy and the infallibility of the pope. They say: "Non Serviam."

Why do the the Orthodox hone in on the Filioque, for example? Their position, theologically, is problematic. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then we have two generations, two Sons of God. It is clear from scripture, is it not? that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? "Whom I will send," Jesus said. Why do the "Orthodox" raise such issues? They know perfectly well, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as One. Just because the Father alone is mentioned at Nicea does not exclude the Son.

Everything boils down to disobedience. The same people who will not submit to papal authority on matters og the faith, and jurisdiction, would have joined the schism of Core. After all, what right did Moses have to bind anyone else's conscience. Whom do you obey, Stuart? Who is your superior? Need I quote St. Paul on private inspiration? What kind of a Church do you espouse without a visible head?

Brian

[David Gray]

>Need I quote St. Paul on private inspiration?

Perhaps you need an encounter with Paul's writings on the Bereans...

[Stuart Koehl]

Isn't amazing how those who speak the loudest of "obedience" to the Pope are also the same people who insist on being more Catholic than the current occupant of Peter's seat? Brian insists on making demands of other Christians that the Holy Father himself does not make. For instance, Brian undoubtedly has not read Cardinal Ratzinger's Graz speech of 1978, which he can find in the 1985 edition of the Cardinal's "Elements of Catholic Theology".

What, precisely, does Brian think Benedict XVI meant when he said that, "As concerns the primacy, the Catholic Church cannot demand more of the Orthodox, as a precondition for reconciliation, than that which was believed and professed by the Church in the first millennium"? Does Brian pretend to know what was believed and professed in the first millennium with regard to the primacy? He doesn't show it, nor do his words accord with the official policies of the Catholic Church to which he swears unwavering obedience.

[peterspence]

As concerns B-16's statement (as Cardinal Ratzinger) "As concerns the primacy, the Catholic Church cannot demand more of the Orthodox, as a precondition for reconciliation, than that which was believed and professed by the Church in the first millennium"
I will only point out that, when he was made Pope, he left out the title "Patriarch of the West," which didn't do much for chummying up to the Orthodox. I do believe he wants union to happen--and I even think it will--but business, it seems, is business.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I will only point out that, when he was made Pope, he left out the title "Patriarch of the West," which didn't do much for chummying up to the Orthodox. I do believe he wants union to happen--and I even think it will--but business, it seems, is business<<<

It is true that Benedict has relegated the title, but in so doing he pointed out that it was in fact meaningless given the context of the non-territorial nature of the Latin Church. In other words, by accident of history, the Pope became patriarch not merely of Western Europe and North Africa--the historic territories of the Western patriarchate--but of the New World and such parts of Asia and Africa as were not already part of the territorial patrimony of the Oriental patriarchates.

This opens the door to a thoroughgoing reorganization of the Church on rational territorial grounds, since Vatican II explicitly allows that the Catholic Church can erect new patriarchates, metropolias and dioceses as is required for the governance of the Church. I would much rather see the territory previously subsumed under the claims of the "Patriarchate of the West" divided into separate patriarchates for Western Europe, North and South America, and Asia-Pacifica.

Africa would fall under the territory of the Pope of Alexandria, whose titles already include "Of All Africa"; the Middle East and India would fall to the Patriarch of Antioch, whose titles include "And all the East"; Eastern Europe would fall to the Patriarch of Kyiv. The Patriarch of the West would be limited to Western Europe (as far East as Poland and excluding the Balkans) as well as North Africa excluding Egypt.

This arrangement would recreate the multipolarity that existed prior to the Arab conquest of the Middle East, and would deliberately avoid the present lack of balance between the West and the East. It would most definitely eliminate the bipolarity that existed in the eleventh century, which was the fundamental cause of the schism. It would also reduce the Church to more manageable chunks, under ancient canonical principles as well as the modern "principle of subsidiarity", that requires decisions to be made as close as possible to the people directly affected by them.

[firinnteine]

GL, I agree with your description of hell -- except I am unsure whether the "great gulf" existing between hades (?) and Abraham's bosom is to be attributed to the final recreated order in the same way.

I happen to think something very similar to Stuart's position on this one -- hell is the experience of God's love as wrath. There is at least some Scriptural warrant for this, by analogy: the flood was an act of God's wrath, but St. Peter describes it as symbolizing baptism -- as a redemptive act. Jesus says "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled." In wider context, there are strong overtones of judgment; but then He says "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!" (Luke 12 -- ESV, that being the translation most ready to hand) The reference to baptism calls up memories of John, the forerunner, who said of the one who comes after him that "He will baptize you with fire."

This idea is fairly clearly present in The Last Battle (someone mentioned this already). It is also, I think, to be found in that other more obscure Inkling, Charles Williams, who somewhere (Descent of the Dove?) refers to the occasion when "Our Lord the Spirit fell upon the cities of the plain."

In short: our God is a consuming fire -- as we shall all find, to our everlasting joy or sorrow.

On another tack, do we really not know what will happen to Satan? I suppose this depends on how we are to interpret the statement that Satan (and the two beasts) are, along with death and hell, cast into the lake of fire.

I've also wondered whether we can truly say that we know of no ultimate human resident in hell. How would those who advocate that position interpret Jesus' words in John 17, "not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled"? (That's a sincere question; I've heard the idea before, but I haven't found anyone explaining how that statement would fit with the hope of an empty hell, and I was curious.)

[Brian Kelly]

Stuart et al,

The essence of hell is everlasting separation from the vision of God. The accidental part of hell is the torment; our Lord did speak of "enquenchable fire" more than once. If you ask how material fire can torment a spirit (angel) or a spiritual substance (soul), yes, that is a mystery. But the fact that it is a torment is not a mystery. My headache is in my body, but it certainly aches my soul as well. Obviously, the parable of Dives and Abraham is an analogy, but quite real. If it were not real, then Jesus would have deceived us by such a vision of suffering. Nor can one call the many references to hell hyperbole as in "hate father and mother," "take out your eye," cut off your hand."

Gregory of Nyssa fell under the influence of Origen and his apocatasis. He certainly did not learn that at the monastic domicilium in Cappadocia. His brother Basil never taught such a thing.

>>>"What, precisely, does Brian think Benedict XVI meant when he said that, "As concerns the primacy, the Catholic Church cannot demand more of the Orthodox, as a precondition for reconciliation, than that which was believed and professed by the Church in the first millennium"? Does Brian pretend to know what was believed and professed in the first millennium with regard to the primacy?"<<<

I do not know what then Cardinal Ratzinger (not Benedict XVI) meant. If he meant that the Orthodox need only accept a "first among equals" primacy, or some such status, then he was wrong and going against the teaching of the Catholic fathers, east and west, of the first millenium. Or, are we going to have two sets of fathers, one papally loyal, the other not so? I suppose the schismatics have their own "fathers" who opposed the pope? And, even though the Patriarch of Alexandria was called pappas before the bishop of Rome (the Coptic Church has a pope, too, still Athanasius (and so many others who held that See over the centuries of the first millenium) certainly recognized the ultimate authority of the Roman bishop and they often made use of appeals to it.

And what about the eastern ecumenical Council of Chacedon? Did the fathers not raise their voice in unison after the Tome of Leo was read to refute the Monophystites: "Peter has spoken through Leo." Was the papal legate not given special regognition at these eastern synods? Hosius of Cordova was at Nicaea and other Roman legates at the other synods. Would I be wasting my time posting quotes from the eastern fathers (first millenium) who wrote of the supremacy of Rome on doctrinal matters? And what was Pope Clement I doing at the end of the first century writing an epistle to an eastern church as an authority to settle a dispute?

I cannot judge the motives of then Cardinal Ratzinger, or Pope Benedict XVI, or John Paul II on their ecumenical endeavors? All I can do is affirm what has been defined by the Church. Neither of these Popes defined anything. Wait! John Paul II did. He defined that the valid matter for holy orders was a baptized male and he did call it a "definition," and he did speak for the whole Church, and he did bind the consciences of the faithful by stating that to teach to the contrary is a grave sin. The pope has thereby bound every pope after him on this question, just as Boniface VIII did when he defined: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Unam Sanctam, 1302) The pope then, as a human creature, must be subject to previous pronouncements from previous popes. Benedict XVI has no authority to redefine what schism is, which he would have to do to make it no longer a sin. As the definition at Vatican I stated it: the infallibility of the pope is "a divinely revealed dogma" and, for further clarity, the council added that the definition of its very nature was "irreformable."

As I posted before, Catholic obedience is hierarchical and not blind. One cannot submit to the private teachings (or private praxy) of a pope whose personal doctrine is not in conformity to the teachings of the infallible magisterium. It is not Catholic doctrine to obey every papal wish (as in the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI), adopt every political action (calling the UN the "hope of the world, or take to oneself every ecumenical overture of the pope, when he is acting out a private policy. (Praying at synagogues and kissing a Koran? Cui bono?) I could give you about five quotes from prominent Churchmen who attended Vatican II who regretted some of the teachings of that non-defining pastoral council, and they were loyal Catholics, loyal to the pope. (Carinal Heenan of England, Siri of Milan, Butler of England, and many others) These men knew what Catholic obedience was.

Siri said, in an interview in the magazine 30 Days, that "if the Church were no indestructible, Vatican II would have destroyed it."

By the way, I have a document that affirms that Rome, today, considers the doctrine of No salvation outside the Church to be definitive, and that a Catholic has the right to defend it in its "literal sense." When this document was issued Ratzinger was the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. So, even though, in sermons and books, these two popes seem to be changing traditional doctrine, they end up affirming what's de fide at some point or another.

Brian

[Gene Godbold]

Brian wrote:
"If you ask how material fire can torment a spirit (angel) or a spiritual substance (soul), yes, that is a mystery."

What about the general resurrection? There is going to be a resurrection of both the saved and the lost. (It's in the OT in Daniel and in the NT as well.) The lost as well as saved get new bodies which might alleviate (some) of the mystery. Also, the earth isn't done away with--it's recreated by the Logos and it looks like we're going to live "here" under King Jesus.

Of course you might not want to believe me since, by Boniface VIII's definition, I'm going to be among the lost. (Pardon me if I prefer the Lord of the Universe to some Italian potentate.)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Of course you might not want to believe me since, by Boniface VIII's definition, I'm going to be among the lost. <<<

Perhaps Prof. Essolen can remind us of where Dante consigned Boniface VIII?

[Brian Kelly]

Yes, and the clever rascal put Pope St. Celestine V in hell also. Why? because he resigned the papacy. Actually he was a hermit and was constrained to be pope against his will. Dante considered him a coward, but that was not the case. As pope, Celestine was emptying the papal treasury and doing all those things one might expect from a "saint." He was pressured into retirement. What irked Dante was that this good humble pope left the battle, and the vacancy ushered in Boniface, who was quite dictatorial. Boniface personally betrayed Dante by calling in the French to take over his native Florence, while Dante was trying to argue the cause of the pro-papal Geulph party with the pope. Dante was understandably furious at Boniface's deception and treated with gross injustice afterwards. Nevertheless, he was very devoted to the Church and hated to see any corruption in it, especially simony, in its popes and bishops.

It does not matter how corrupt, or not corrupt, Boniface was; nor, Gene, does it matter in terms of his "charism" if he acted like a "potentate." The high priest,who condemned Christ, "prohesied," scripture tell us. There is 2000 years of history, 265 popes, quite a pool from which to draw out the good and the bad, as far as the papcy is concerned. But Christ did not promise impeccability but infallibility in his Vicar. And, for the record,the list of "bad" popes is nothing compared to the good ones. Remember, the first 33 popes shed their blood for the Faith. And, for all his faults, one might include Boniface VIII in that, because he died from wounds inficted upon him by the thugs of the French King King Philip the Fair who beat him viscously at Agnani, after he tried to escape them.
It did not merit him the title of martyr, but he was beaten by men who hated the Church he ruled over.

Brian

[Gene Godbold]

Brian,
You mistake me. I wasn't arguing for or against any Pope's personal morality or holiness or even whether they exercise their office in pride or humility. I was rather making the point of where my unmediated loyalty ultimately lies.

Incidentally, I left the RC church over half my life ago precisely over papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. That said, there is a very great deal to love and respect in the RC church and I have no problem with the Pope as primus inter pares. Ecclesiologically speaking, though, I'm with the Orthodox (which looks--if I can trust Stuart on this--like it includes the Melkites and the Byzantine Catholics).

[James A. Altena]

I have never been in the fold of Rome, but I second Gene's post.

"By the way, I have a document that affirms that Rome, today, considers the doctrine of No salvation outside the Church to be definitive, and that a Catholic has the right to defend it in its 'literal sense.'"

And some people -- whether corrupt medieval popes or their latter-day ultramontane drones -- are pridefully addicted to wanting to consign others to Hell on the basis of "a document", and congratulate themselves that in so doing they exhibit the charity and humility of Christ.

To quote one of the editors of Touchstone (from a circulated e-mail): "I have a very great interest in being in communnion with the bishop of Rome. I have absolutely no interest in being in communion with some of his followers."

[GL]

But Christ did not promise impeccability but infallibility in his Vicar.

No offense intended, Brian, but where do you find that Christ promised infallibility to the Bishop of Rome?

[David Gray]

>But Christ did not promise impeccability but infallibility in his Vicar.

Actually he didn't do either.

[Brian Kelly]

To GL

"Whatever thou shalt bind on earth is bound in heaven." (Matt. 16:19) and, again, the same promise to the twelve as a body, who also, tradition has it, were each personally preserved from error in teaching doctrine. (Matt:18:16) Does it not follow that if Peter (or Peter and the bishops as one) "bind our consciences" with a de fide doctrinal or moral pronouncement that that which is bound on earth is bound in heaven? Ergo. it is must be true, if the God of truth ratifies the pronouncement. No other church claims this prerogative, no other Patriarch. Only Rome. And the bishops acting as a body (synodally), with Rome granting decrees issuing therefrom to be universally binding, anathema sit or some such binding condition attached.

"Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you (plural in the Greek, the 12) that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee (singular in Greek) and thou being once converted confirm thy brethren." (Luke 22:31)

And after the Resurrection, with Peter's three amends for his three denials, Jesus says between each profession of love: "Feed my lambs, feed my lambs," then finally, "feed my sheep."

If Peter could fail as the universal shepherd, on faith or morals, and feed the flock with false doctrine as its visible head, then the gates of hell have prevailed, and Satan has indeed sifted the Church and won. Rather no, this cannot happen for the Lord promised:"Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world." (Matt. 28:20)

Finally our Lord promised to send the Spirit of Truth to abide always with the Church. (Sermon at the Last Supper in John)

There has to be infallibility in the Church. And since the Church is made up of men, sinful men, there has to be infallibility in some man or body of men teaching as one. Who else could this be except the pope and the bishops acting in communion with him? As the universal shepherd, of course, and not as a private theologian. Papal definitions, as many seem to not know, cannot have any new doctrine for their matter. They must contain matter of faith that is found in scripture or tradition, implicit in either, but explicit it one of those two sources. The pope cannot invent a doctrine. God would prevent him, for all revelation ended with John, at the deposit of faith comes from the apostolic teaching.

>>>And some people -- whether corrupt medieval popes or their latter-day ultramontane drones -- are pridefully addicted to wanting to consign others to Hell on the basis of "a document", and congratulate themselves that in so doing they exhibit the charity and humility of Christ.<<<

Again, James, what you freely assert, I freely deny. If I wanted to consign others to hell, as you say, I'd keep quiet about the Church's teaching, so no one knew about the only way to heaven except us prideful ultramontane Catholics. Love for souls is what motivates me. I am unwilling, when it comes to everlasting life or death, to fool around with sentimental thinking on religious matters. I know of one way only to get to heaven and the Church has always clearly taught the same, until this age of indifferentism. Though who teach contrary to this saving doctrine are the ones who are uncharitable. At least Melancthon had some charity when he refused to take a risk with his mother's soul. Unsure of her state, she asked him on her deathbed which religion she should die in, the new or the old. "It's easier to live in the new," he said, "but safer to die in the old."

My reference to the "document" was just to validate the Catholicity of the position I am defending. It has not been totally buried, yet. That is all.

Brian

[James A. Altena]

Brian,

Just mentioning a "document" hardly validates its "Catholicity." What specifically is the document in question -- its title and author? Where can we access the complete text? Is it of ex cathedra authority? Is it issued on the explicit authority of the Magisterium as binding on all the faithful, or on some lesser authority as a theologeumenon?

Furthermore, you said of the claim that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church that "a Catholic has the right to defend it in its 'literal sense.'" Which means that a Catholic also has a right to defend it in its non-literal sense (else it would not be a right, but an obligation). Which in turn necessarily means that either sense is a theologeumenon, as both are valid options for belief for faithful Catholics.

Now, since the literal sense necessarily consigns far more people to Hell than the non-literal one, and is thus far more judgmental, the person such has yourself who chooses to believe the literal sense by definition *prefers* to consign far more people to Hell and to be judgmental, since he could have freely chosen the other option instead. So much for your putative "love of souls" -- or of any but your own -- for which you so publicly congratulate yourself.

("God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, Orthodox, Protestants, Orangemen, or even as this Anglo-Catholic. I cite all the prophecies of Fatima, condemn the last five popes as "dismal," and consign all who do not agree with me to Hell; I buy indulgences and scapulars of all that I possess from my bingo prizes.")

And on the other hand, if you hold belief in the literal sense to be necessarily the only correct belief, and therefore mandatory, then you contradict the very document you claim as support for your position, since it presents that position as a theologeumenon and not as a mandatory point of faith.

As for the rest -- you rely upon the same tiresome circular reasoning and question begging that is the stock in trade of all such polemics. Your citations of Scripture and patristic texts "prove" what you suppose them to "prove" only if you assume your premises from the outset. They prove absolutely nothing about e.g. "papal supremacy" (the more accurate term is "primacy," of course) unless you already assume a particular definition of such supremacy before you even cite them. Nor do they prove the infallibility (as opposed to the indefectibility) of the Church, for the same reason -- much less that Rome is the said Church in question.

[Stuart Koehl]

How old are you, Brian? Twelve? Thirteen?

[James A. Altena]

Stuart, now is not the time for undue flattery....

[peterspence]

While I think some of the brethren may be behaving a little harshly toward dear Brian, he is asking for it.
For me, I believe the statement about "no salvation outside the Church." However, I do not believe in Brian's obviously narrow definition of "the Church." The city of this world? Or the heavenly city? When I asked an EC priest if he believed in this idea he said, "Yes. But I'm willing to let God figure out the details." I find tremendous comfort in God's mercy.

"Those who are not against us are for us."

Incidentally, and totally beside the point, I heard a funny quote from Sister Wendy Beckett the other day as she discussed St Francis' self-mortification:

"God doesn't want us to punish ourselves. He wants us to love one another--which is often punishment enough."
Priceless.

[Bob Gardner]

"By the way, I have a document that affirms that Rome, today, considers the doctrine of No salvation outside the Church to be definitive, and that a Catholic has the right to defend it in its "literal sense." When this document was issued Ratzinger was the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. So, even though, in sermons and books, these two popes seem to be changing traditional doctrine, they end up affirming what's de fide at some point or another."

Brian, I am not sure to what gnostic document you maybe referring, but the "official" document issued when Ratzinger was the head of the CDF is

[Bob Gardner]

Dominus Iesus in which we read:

16 ... With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

[Bob Gardner]

This, of course, is not a denial of No salvation outside the Church, but rather a clarification of what it means.

[luthien]

Stuart, be nice.

Brian, "The pope cannot invent a doctrine. God would prevent him, for all revelation ended with John, at the deposit of faith comes from the apostolic teaching." (bolding mine)
Isn't free will a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church? If God makes the Pope be infallible and actually prevents him from coming up with a novel doctrine, the Pope no longer has Free Will, which would make Popes who have proclaimed the doctrine of Free Will fallible...do you see where this goes?

[David Gray]

>For me, I believe the statement about "no salvation outside the Church." However, I do not believe in Brian's obviously narrow definition of "the Church."

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Westminster Confession XXV.II

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Isn't free will a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church? If God makes the Pope be infallible and actually prevents him from coming up with a novel doctrine, the Pope no longer has Free Will, which would make Popes who have proclaimed the doctrine of Free Will fallible...do you see where this goes?<<<

Luthien, don't go and get all logical on poor Brian, now!

Besides, Brian is making claims for the Pope that the Pope does not make for himself. It is useful, though, to see how the Roman Catholics have to deal with their equivalent of the Ultra Orthodox. Both types claim to be bearers of the authentic Tradition, but they have to be more pontifical than the Pope in order to do so.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Dominus Iesus<<<

A much misunderstood document that was never intended for wide release, Dominus Iesus was actually directed towards certain Roman Catholic bishops in India (of all places) who were making an indiscriminate outreach to Hindus and Indian Protestants that was leaning towards open communion. With regard to other Christians, these bishops were using the term "Sister Churches" for "the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery", and this is what the Letter was meant to correct.

Contrary to the early characterization made by some Orthodox spokesmen, Dominus Iesus did not limit the term "Sister Churches" to those true Churches in communion with Rome, but extended it to "the Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist"

Brian is stuck then, in a locgical quandry. On the one hand, in his opinion, the Pope cannot teach false doctrine. According to Brian, the doctrine of extra ecclesia nulla sallus requires all to acknowledge the "supremacy" of the Pope (a term that not even Pius IX used). Yet the Catholic Church recognizes that there are "true Churches" outside of communion with Rome. Worse, from Brian's perspective, the Catholic Church acknowledges that these are fully sufficient to ensure the salvation of their adherents (cf. Balamand Statement, 1993); therefore the Catholic Church does not proselytize members of these particular Churches, but rather allows them to receive the Eucharist in Catholic Churches, and allows the Catholic faithful to receive the Eucharist in theirs. As I wrote earlier, if Brian's understanding of the doctrine is correct, the Catholic Church, of which the Pope is the head, is either committing fraud or blasphemy by doing this. So the Pope would be teaching false doctrine (kinda like Honorius I, eh Brian?), and Brian would be wrong about the Pope. Or he could be teaching true doctrine, and Brian could be wrong about the meaning of the doctrine. But one consistent thread runs through all these conclusions.

[James A. Altena]

Kudos to Peterspence, Bob Gardner, David Gray, Stuart Koehl, and other brethren of true charity.

Dear Luthein,

The issue is not that the Pope does or doesn't have free will. He does, of course. The claim is that in the very narrow range of matters that qualify as being ex cathedra, the Holy Ghost intervenes to guide the Pope so that he does not lead the faithful into error. Even for those who do not accept the doctrine of papal infallibility, the logic of this is not a problem. Do you not believe that God has on certain occasions intervened in your own life to guide your thought and actions to an end you would not have chosen of your own volition? And did He not do so in some cases to prevent you from misleading someone else astray? And yet those specific interventions did not abrogate your free will.

There is also an issue in philosophy of how to define free will -- in terms of desire only, or also in terms of ability to act on desire to realize it. Two instances:
1) I desire to fly by merely flapping my arms, but physically I am not able to do so. Do I or do I not have free will here?
2) I am a North Korean Christian who desires who practice my faith publicly, but am prohibited from so doing by the government. Do I or do I not have free will here?

In both instances I have the capacity to will in the sense of choosing or not choosing to desire something. In both cases conditions beyond my power prevent me from acting to realize my desire. In the first case the limitation is inherent in the natural laws of the universe which cannot be changed (except by God); in the second, it is due instead to inhibitory actions by other men (which can be changed, but I cannot change them -- though I may wish to change them, which brings up a third illustrative instance).

This is of theological importance because e.g. classical Calvinist arguments for election argue that both God's predestinating decree and the total depravity of fallen man do not contravene human free will, because the Calvinists define free will solely in terms of volition apart from capacity for realization (and thus argue that e.g. St. Paul has free will in Rom. 7:14-23). I happen to be in partial disagreemeent with that, but it's a tricky issue.

[Bill R]

"...because the Calvinists define free will solely in terms of volition apart from capacity for realization (and thus argue that e.g. St. Paul has free will in Rom. 7:14-23)."

Partially correct. A Calvinist would define free will in terms of volition apart from capacity for desire, if you will, and not merely for realization.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill,

Your comment doesn't make sense. By definition one does not will something unless one in some sense desires it, and to do that one must have the capacity to desire it.

[Bill R]

"Your comment doesn't make sense. By definition one does not will something unless one in some sense desires it, and to do that one must have the capacity to desire it."

Your argument is with Jonathan Edwards, James, not with me. You might check out the argument in his book, "The Freedom of the Will." Edwards argues that we cannot will that which we truly do not desire, and that the (truly and finally) lost do not repent because they never desire such. Their will is "free" to seek what it desires, but it cannot and never will desire to repent and be saved. Hence the need for God's grace to restore the ability to desire repentance. (But you should rely only on Edwards' argument, not my miserable attempt to summarize it.)

[luthien]

Mr. Altena, thank you for the clarification-I suppose I shall have to concede that papal infallibility is not necessarily illogical, even if it is an invented doctrine.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill,

Your summary of Edwards speaks to a somewhat different logical distinction -- having free will in general vs. having free will with respect to some specific thing. There is also a distinction being having the capacity to will something and actually willing it. One must have the former in order to do the latter, but having the former does not necessarily entail doing the latter, unless one is a Platonist (see below).

E.g. I can have free will to desire ice cream (and to choose chocolate or vanilla), or a zillion other things, but not have free will to desire to be a star in some galaxy, the existence of which I am unaware.

Edwards' example is slightly different, in that the lack of knowledge is not absolute in an abstract factual sense, but in a more restricted sense of personal experience or relation. I.e., repentance is something that the reprobate sinner observes externally in other people, but never internally in himself.

I suspect (but am not certain) that Edwards here may be utilizing a variant of Plato's dictum that all men necessarily desire the good, and therefore the desire for evil is actually due to ignorance of the good. In this case, the reprobate sinner does not "know" and is ignorant of the good (i.e. God) and thus does not know (i.e. is ignorant of in the sense of never desiring or experiencing) repentance. (Of course, this involves an equivocation between distinct senses of "know" -- personal intimacy vs. factual knowledge vs. experience, or to know X vs. to know of or about X.)

There is also an issue of whether Edwards is representative of or exceptional as a spokesman for Calvinism here. I do not know the answer to that question.

I do not hesitate to say that Edwards ultimately is wrong. To try to put it in a very brief compass (the terms I will use actually require extended explanation), the essence of St. John's statement that "God is love" means that God is a being who is essentially relational in a self-disclosing and self-giving sense (hence His irreducible Triune being as one God in three persons -- persons being by definition beings-in-relation). Scripture also teaches that God loves (i.e. is in a self-disclosing and self-giving relation) to all men, as being created in His image and likeness, and that (according to His permissive but not His perfect will) He desires all men to be saved. If that is so, then it must necessarily be the case that he truly makes it possible for all men to repent of sin -- which means that all men must have the capacity and occasion to so repent, and must be at some time so moved (by the universal gift of prevenient grace and the specific intervention of the Holy Ghost -- once again the relation of God to man) so to do. To assert that the reprobate can never will to repent because they never desire it is at bottom to assert that God is never in a self-disclosing and self-giving relation to the souls He created in His own image and likeness and has never desired their salvation. That is fundamentally wrong.

I personally hold that the fundamental theological flaw in Calvinism to be that, in its effort to make the absolute sovereignty of God the foundation and center of theology, it subtly but profoundly misconceives the nature of divine-human relation by mistakenly inverting the essential ordering between God's love and His justice, erroneously making the former a function of the latter instead of vice-versa. That is why I believe Edwards is wrong here. (I'm sure our learned Calvinists here have substantive and cogent responses to that, but such is my conviction.)

Also, assuming you have represented Edwards correctly, there is a logical non sequitur here. While it is true that we cannot will what we do not desire, the failure to will X does not prove the absence of either knowledge of X, the capacity to desire X, or the capacity to will X. One could know of X and have the capacity to desire and to will it, and fail to do so. That is why I suppose a Platonic background to Edwards' argument here, for Plato argues that if one knows of the good, one necessarily desires it and wills (within one's capacity) to have it.

You write that Edwards argues that the will of the reprobate "cannot and never will desire to repent and be saved." Two distinct things must be separated here -- cannot and will not. If one cannot do something (i.e. one lacks the capacity), one necessarily will not do it. But if there is free will with respect to specific thing X, then it is entirely possible that one can do it but that one simply will choose never to do it.

Now, if Edwards rejects this latter option, and says that the will of the reprobate cannot ever will to desire X (i.e. it lacks the capacity to do so), then he denies that this will has free will with respect to X, even if it has free will generally -- for the "will is 'free' to seek what it desires, but it cannot and never will desire" X. Therefore the will is by Edwards' own definition not free with respect to X.

But this is exactly the point I made in my previous post. "By definition one does not will something unless one in some sense desires it, and to do that one must have the capacity to desire it" (i.e., one indeed can desire it.) And thus to "define free will in terms of volition apart from capacity for desire" reduces to a logical and definitional self-contradiction.

[Bill R]

“Now, if Edwards rejects this latter option, and says that the will of the reprobate cannot ever will to desire X (i.e. it lacks the capacity to do so), then he denies that this will has free will with respect to X, even if it has free will generally -- for the "will is 'free' to seek what it desires, but it cannot and never will desire" X. Therefore the will is by Edwards' own definition not free with respect to X.”

True, but Edwards never asserts that men have free will—only what he calls “free agency.” Edwards agrees with Luther (and Calvin) that the will is in bondage due to sin. Thus he expressly denies that men have what is commonly denominated as “free will.” I do believe that most Calvinists would hold that Edwards represents Calvin fairly.

You and I will not resolve what finer minds than ours have pondered for two millennia. The NT is littered with verses such as John 6: 65: “And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” (KJV) The passages that imply that our wills are free are easy to believe; it’s those that seem to assert the opposite that are difficult. Thus any explanation of the Father’s plan must have an adequate rationale for these deterministic passages.

“I personally hold that the fundamental theological flaw in Calvinism to be that, in its effort to make the absolute sovereignty of God the foundation and center of theology, it subtly but profoundly misconceives the nature of divine-human relation by mistakenly inverting the essential ordering between God's love and His justice, erroneously making the former a function of the latter instead of vice-versa.”

I’d respond (perhaps) but it’s not clear to me what the phrase “a function of” means in this context. Subordination, perhaps?

But ultimately I’m not a polemicist. I’ve cracked my head open too often on these issues. I’m more than happy to rest on C.S. Lewis’s observations in the last chapter of The Great Divorce, even if my Calvinist brethren find them less than adequate. For such a reason I have no problem with asserting that both Calvinism and Arminianism (or their variants in the liturgical traditions) are both valid Christian options. I just find the former a bit more persuasive (even if not always fully so).

[James A. Altena]

Dear Bill,

As far as I can tell, Edwards' distinction between free will and free agency is simply a rephrasing of the same points I've discussed. Will designates desire and agency designates capacity to act on desire.

The Calvinist apologists I have read (admittedly not comprehensive) simply speak of free will or lack thereof. To say that the will is in bondage to sin does not (as such apologists also agree) deny the existence of free will generally; it denies it only with respect to man being able to choose to be completely free from sin. No Catholic disagrees with that. The disagreement with Calvinist brethren, as I understand it, is over whether at all, and if so to what degree, such bondage precludes either desire not to sin, or any capacity for cooperation with intervening divine agency in resisting sin.

The passage from John is not particularly problematic. The patristic and Catholic understanding is that man cannot turn to God initially of his own volition, but must be moved by the Holy Ghost -- but by virtue of the universal gift (not a gift only to an elect -- a point of difference between Cahtolcis and Calvinists, I believe) of prevenient grace. All men have the capacity to respond once so moved, and to cooperate with or resist God's call (what the Orthodox call synergy). To use an analogy, a deathly sick man may utterly lack the strength to summon a doctor on his own; but once the doctor comes in to him, he still has the ability to accept or reject the medicine the doctor proffers.

We agree that we will not resolve this issue. But that does not preclude pointing out difficulties in the reasoning of those who have addressed it, which is simply a matter of logical analysis of the terms and structure of an argument, as distinct from its contents. The result of so doing, of course, may be to leave the matter more rather than less unsettled.

We have already taken this further abroad off-line, with exchanges regarding Rom. 9 and St. Augustine'c commentary on the same. If you think it would be edifying to others to post some of that exchange, fine; if not, I won't comment further on it here.